UC-NRLF 


EflE    1D7 


LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


WORD  FROM  THE  NORTH-WEST 


TO  DE.  ETJSSELL; 


>METIME   AMERICAN   CORRESPONDENT  OF 


'THE    TIMES/ 


A  LETTER 


TO 


WM.  HOWARD  RUSSELL  LL,  D, 


ON  PASSAGES  IX  HIS 


DIARY  NORTH  AND  SOUTH.' 


BY  AITOEEW  DIOKSON  WHITE, 

PROF.  OF  HISTORY  AND  ENGLISH  LITERATURE  IN  MICHIGAN  UNIVERSITY. 


FROM  THE  LONDON  EDITION. 


SYRACUSE: 

SUMMERS  &  BROTHER,  PRINTERS,  DAILY  STANDARD  OFFICE. 

1863. 


**% 

VrtNrt' 


LIBRARIAN'S  FUi;0 


A  LETTER. 


SIR  : — A  recent  writer  in  a  London  journal  having  sketched 
the  tricks  of  a  Parisian  juggler,  spake  on  this  wise  : — "  M.  Ed- 
mond  might  have  been  a  Spurgeon,  a  Gumming,  a  Hume,  a 
Morrison  (of  the  pills,)  a  Montalembert,  a  D*  Israeli,  or  a  news 
paper  correspondent." 

This  bit  of  phrasing  is,  as  you  see,  in  the  most  approved 
London  style — jaunty,  knowing,  and  so  thrown  as  to  befoul 
slightly  two  men  of  whom  Europe  has  reason  to  be  proud,  and 
who  were  not  in  the  least  concerned  in  the  subject  discussed. 
But  it  is  chiefly  interesting  as  a  confession  regarding  the  worth 
of  much  of  the  famed  correspondence  published  in  certain  London 
newspapers — a  confession  from  one  of  those  who  know  it  best 

From  such  eminent  authority  I  dare  not  dissent  as  regards 
the  manufacture  of  London  correspondence  in  general*;  but  it  is 
precisely  because  I  have  dissented  in  regard  to  your  correspon 
dence  in  particular,  and  because  you  have  not  been  placed  in 
the  same  categoiy  with  your  quackish  imitators,  that  I  takej-the 
liberty  of  writing  }^ou  upon  your  "  Diary  North  and  South." 

No  sane  man  cares  to  answer  the  letters  which  your  succes 
sors  are  writing  from  America.  It  would  be  absurd  to  refute 
them  when  they  so  abundantly  refute  themselves ;  and  it  would 
be  unjust  to  blame  them  when  they  merely  manufacture  the  ex 
act  article  for  which  they  are  paid.  But  the  justification  for 
writing  you  is  simple.  Your  "  Diary,"  while  it  gives  lessons 
for  which  thoughtful  Americans  thank  you,  contains  errors  in 
observation,  deduction,  and,  worst  of  all,  in  preliminary  judg 
ment,  which  ought  to  be  shoAvn. 

My  excuse  for  writing  at  so  late  a  day  is  that  I  have  hoped 
to  see  you  opposed  by  some  champion  better  armed. 

To  clear  the  way  toward  your  smaller  errors  let  me  show 
what  Americans  think  of  your  great  error. 

This  great  mistake — mother  of  a  vast  brood  of  wrong  judg 
ments — is  that,  before  the  present  war,  there  was  throughout 
the  United  States  a  hate  for  every  thing  English  ;  that  it  had 
become  morbid ;  that  the  present  bitterness  is  but  that  old 
chronic  hate  made  acute  by  disappointments  in  our  civil  war. 


The  importance  of  a  right  understanding  is  my  excuse  for 
asking  you  to  look  back  along  our  common  history. 

No  candid  man  can  wonder  that  an  anti-English  spirit  lin 
gered  in  America  after  the  War  of  Independence.  Every 
statesman's  mind  bore  remembrances  of  that  peculiarly  English 
series  of  insults  of  which  Wedderburn's  treatment  of  Franklin 
was  the  climax ;  every  hamlet  had  its  traditions  of  the  allied 
British  and  Indians.  No  man  could  forget  that  at  Wyoming 
the  British  were  to  the  Indians  as  three  to  one. 

No  more  is  it  matter  for  surprise  that  the  war  of  1812,  and 
the  policy  which  led  to  it,  revived  the  old  spirit.  In  the  light 
of  their  own  feelings  at  the  "  Trent"  affair — the  unauthorized 
seizure  of  two  men  not  British  subjects,  from  a  packet  ship,  in 
a  distant  sea,  Englishmen  can  hardly  be  surprised  that  the 
Americans  were  exasperated  at  the  "  Chesapeake"  affair — the 
authorized-  seizure  of  their  own  citizens,  upon  then-  own  coasts, 
from  an  imperfectly  equipped  American  frigate. 

Nor  can  it  be  wondered  at  that  English  employment  of  In 
dians  in  this  second  war,  after  the  dreadful  experiences  of  the 
first ;  and  the  abuse  heaped  by  the  greater  portion  of  the  Eng 
lish  press  on  everything  which  Americans  venerated,  made 
matters  still  worse.  When  bitter  things  are  said  in  America 
of  the  British  Government,  it  would,  perhaps,  but  be  fair  to 
remember  that  many  men  are  still  living  who  saw  the  mangled 
bodies  of  women  and  children — victims  of  the  British  allies  ; 
and  that  there  are  thousands  who  remember  seeing  even  worse 
names  applied  by  English  journals  to  Jackson  and  Clay  than 
the  same  journals  gave,  a  few  years  since,  to  Napoleon  the 
Third  ;  or  than  they  now  give  to  Lincoln,  Butler,  and  Seward. 

And,  even  if  all  this  could  have  been  forgotten  in  a  day 
(would  that  it  might  have  been!)  what  chance  has  since  been 
given  for  any  growth  of  gocd  feeling  ? 

Look  at  the  tourists  who  have  preceded  you  ! — and  at  their 
books ! 

Two  or  three  have  been  kindly  and  fair.  One  was  so  witty 
that,  though  we  winced  as  he  stung  us,  we  joined  in  the  world's 
laugh  afterward  and  confessed  ourselves  foolish  ever  to  have 
been  offended.  But  the  others — poor  souls  ! — a  week  in  one 
great  state,  a  day  in  another,  an  hour  in  a  third — pirouetting 
from  great  city  to  great  city — not  deigning  to  look  at  the  vast 
intervening  spaces  where  the  strongest  elements  in  the  new  civ 
ilization  were  developing — gathering  husks  and  rinds  to  be  pa- 


raded  in  England  as  fruit — too  dignified  to  suffer  acquaintance 
with  the  sturdy  men  who  were  grappling  with  the  great  prob 
lems  presented  ;  only  condescending  in  noting  the  idioms  of 
wagon-drivers  and  bar-keepers  ;  too  careless  to  reason  upon  the 
great  work  going  on  ;  only  careful  to  blame  the  nation  for  not 
abolishing  slavery,  despite  the  Constitution,  as  they  now  blame 
us  for  having  striven  to  restrict  it,  in  accordance  with  the  Con 
stitution  ;  too  blind  to  see  that  a  country  might  be,  in  many 
details  unlike  England,  and  yet  have  some  life ;  only  keen  in 
seeing  spittle,  and  hearing  the  nasal  twang.  Candidly,  Sir, 
can  you  wonder  that  a  nation,  nevvr,  and  pardonably  sensitive 
to  the  opinion  of  the  world,  should  be  irritated  against  a  nation 
of  whom  these  were  almost  the  only  representatives  it  knew  ? 

Even  if  the  dislike  had  been  far  deeper,  would  it  have  been 
at  all  strange,  seeing  that  thereby  Americans  would  but  have 
ranged  themselves  with  almost  all  other  nations  ?  Leaving  out 
of  the  question  Germany,  Spain,  and  Italy,  where  it  can  hard 
ly  be  pretended  that  love  for  England  is  very  hearty,  take  the 
great  ally — France.  Choose  your  Frenchman  as  Carlyle  would 
have  you  choose  a  statesman — the  first  specimen  hit  with  ran 
dom  orangepeel.  Get  under  the  surface  of  his  thoughts — bring 
out  his  pet  ideas — and,  be  he  a  gamin  of  the  Faubourg  St. 
Antoine,  or  a  rag-picker  of  the  Faubourg  St.  Marceau,  or  a 
bluff  merchant  of  jthe  Faubourg  Montmartre,  or  a  noble  of  the 
Faubourg  St.  Germain — Legitimist,  Orleanist,  Napoleonist,  or 
Republican,  you  find  that  the  idea  he  at  this  moment  fondles 
most  is  that  "the  Emperor,  remembering  1815,  has  humbled 
Russia,  has  punished  Austria,  and  is  now  making  ready  to  take 
revenge  on  England/' 

Or  take  Russia,  bound  to  England  by  many  common  strug 
gles  and  interests.  It  was  my  fortune  during  the  Crimean  war, 
to  look  out  on  Russian  things  and  thoughts  with  whatever  ad 
vantages  were  then  given  to  those  attached  to  the  American 
Legation,  and  it  was  no  small  surprise  to  find  that  though  all 
Russians  allowed  that  France  was  striking  far  harder  blows 
than  England,  France  was  respected  and  England  hated. 

And  the  last  news  from  Rio  1 — Sir.  Christie  in  his  glory,  and 
the  Brazilians  running  through  the  streets  crying  "  Death  to 
the  English!" 

May  it  not  be  that  England  has  been  somewhat  in  fault  ? 
May  not  the  reasons  for  this  American  dislike,  which  is  seen  to 
be  shared  by  so  many  other  nations,  be  found  quite  as  much  in 


6 

certain  English  ways  of  dealing  with  the  world,  as  in  the  utter 
perverseness  of  all  other  nations  ? 

So  much  to  show  how  that  American  dislike  was  born — how 
It  was  fed — how  it  was  not  the  morbid  thing  you  seem  to  sup 
pose.  Now  let  me  show  how  it  was  dying  out — nay,  how  that 
old  dislike  was  killed  before  the  present  civil  war  commenced. 

And,  first,  the  common  language,  when  a  chance  was  given' 
it,  did  its  work  in  uniting  tbe  Free  States  to  England,  and  I 
cannot  but  be  surprised  that  one,  who  rejoices  in  so  learned  a 
title  as  yours  should  have  been  content  with  so  superficial  a  view 
as  that  contained  in  the  statement  that  "  Their  language  is  the 
sole  link  between  England  and  the  United  States,  and  it  only 
binds  the  England  of  1770  to  the  American  of  I860.* 

The  sole  link  ! — even  grant  that — but  do  you  not  see  Dr. 
Jlussell,  that  a  common  language  gives  something  more  than 
the  same  words  for  bread  and  butter ;  that  it  must  produce 
community  or  similarity  of  view  on  a  vast  range  of  subjects 
from  greatest  to  least,  and  that,  when  the  thoughts  of  two  na 
tions  are  thus  tied  together,  the  men  of  the  two  nations  begin 
to  be  tied  together  ? 

No  Western  hamiet  so  rude  that  it  does  not  contain  admirers 
of  Wordsworth,  Tennyson,  Dickens,  Hughes,  and  the  rest; 
few  pulpits  so  remote  that  the  spirit  of  Selwyn,  or  Kingsley,  or 
Chalmers,  or  Robertson,  or  Noel,  or  Colenso  has  not  reached 
them  ;  few  men  so  ignorant  as  not  to  know  when  a  valiant  blow 
is  struck  in  England  for  truth  or  right. 

A  few  years  since  when  one  of  my  colleagues  died,  it  was 
inscribed  on  his  monument  as  a  thing  to  insure  veneration,  "  He 
was  a  scholar  of  Arnold,  of  Rugby."  A  few  months  since  I 
saw  a  strong  man  in  a  little  interior  village  ready  to  shed  tears 
at  the  death  of  Buckle,  and  at  the  loss  America  had  thereby 
sustained.  A  few  weeks  since  I  heard  a  young  American  mer 
chant  say  very  naively  to  a  Woolwich  functionary,  who  was 
expounding  certain  regulations  concerning  foreigners,  ' '  But  you 
don't  consider  Americans  foreigners,  do  you?"  Thousands  of 
examples  could  be  given  to  show  that  the  common  language, 
instead  of  the  filmy  thread  you  think,  was  a  strong  cord  extend 
ing  from  every  great  mind  in  England  to  the  best  minds  of  ev 
ery  one  of  our  little  villages,  drawing  them  and  the  men  they 
influenced  out  of  the  old  dislike  into  sympathy,  not,  perhaps, 
with  the  English  Government,  but  with  all  that  was  good  and 
true  in  the  English  people. 

*  Vol.  ii.  p.  37-8. 


Nay,  you  seem  yourself  to  get  a  glimpse  of  this  when  you 
say,  "  And  yet  it  (England)  is  the  only  power  in  Europe,  for  the 

food  opinion  of  which  they  really  seem  to  care.     Let  any 
Yench,  Austrian,  or  Russian  journal  write  what  it  pleases  of 
the  United  States,  it  is  received  with  indifferent  criticism  or 
callous  head-shaking.     But  let  a  London  paper  speak,  and  the 
whole  American  press  is  delighted  or  furious."* 

Despite  a  too  evident  partiality  for  a  portion  of  the  London 
press,  there  is  great  truth  in  that.  Would  that  it  had  pleased 
you  to  get  at  it  and  make  it  known,  rather  than  to  encrust  it 
with  showy  phrases. 

And,  kind  as  were  the  feelings  spreading  among  the  people 
at  large, 'there  was  even  a  better  spirit  in  the  young  men  who 
during  the  last  ten  years  have  been  issuing  from  the  Northern 
Colleges  to  lay  hold  upon  public  opinion.  The  Anglo-mania 
of  the  Eastern  Colleges  has  been  notorious.  During  the  past 
five  years  I  have  stood  in  the  midst  of  nearly  six  hundred  stu 
dents  brought  together  upon  the  munificent  foundation  laid  by 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  in  one  of  the  Western 
States.  In  this  body  of  young  men,  constantly  receiving  and 
constantly  sending  out  the  best  blood  of  the  North- West,  there 
was  gratitude  to  LaFayette,  there  was  wonder  at  Napoleon,  but 
toward  England  there  was  a  tendency  by  all  their  habits  of 
thought.  I  remember  well  how  in  scholarly  discussion  of  Gui- 
zot's  idea,  that  French  civilization  leads  in  Europe  and  has  been 
superior  to  English  civilization,  the  partizans  of  England  were 
to  those  of  France  as  five  to  one. 

But  to  this  growth  in  good  feeling  there  was  one  exception. 
There  was  one  pail  of  the  United  States  whence  hatred  for 
England  was  never  eliminated — the  Slave  States. 

The  reason  is  simple.  England  was  the  "  hot-bed  of  aboli 
tionism,"  English  newspapers  were  opposed  to  slavery  (I  refer, 
of  course,  to  a  period  anterior  to  the  late  Scriptural  defence  of 
slavery  by  some  of  the  foremost,)  Englishmen  were  bent  on 
thwarting  filibusters,  English  women  had  written  a  monster  let- 
terurging  emancipation,  England  had  sent  us  George  Thompson, 
and  had  received  Frederick  Douglas  and  Mrs.  Beecher  Stowe. 

Therefore  the  hatred  of  the  South  for  England  was  always 
fervent ;  and  the  two  men  who  wrought  most  vigorously,  and 
spoke  most  fiercely  to  keep  this  hatred  at  the  boiling  point,  were 
Mr.  Jefferson  Davis  and  Mr.  James  M.  Mason  ;t  and  among 

*  Vol.  ii.  p.  37. 

f  The  present  "  Confederate  Commissioner"  in  London. 


the  choicest  results  of  the  spirit  they  kept  alive  was  the  outrage 
on  Captain  Aldham  in  the  Southern  commercial  capital  and  the 
insult  to  the  Prince  of  Wales  in  the  Southern  political  capital. 

There  were,  indeed,  some  men  in  the  North  who  followed 
the  Southern  leaders  in  this,  but  it  was  simply  because  they 
followed  them  in  everything.  Whenever  a  man  was  found  in 
a  free  state  reviling  England,  it  was  at  once  generally  under 
stood  that  he  supported  the  South  and  slavery.  It  must  be 
owned  however  that  these  men  spoke  with  much  force.  They 
told  us  that  leading  Englishmen  would  not  regret  to  see  our  land 
divided,  that  the  sweet  speeches  at  international  dinners  were 
humbug,  that  in  case  America  got  into  trouble  English  ill-will 
would  show  itself,  that  if  there  was  a  liking  for  emancipation 
there  was  a  passion  for  cotton. 

But  in  those  days  before  the  civil  war  began,  the  disciples^of 
these  men  had  become  a  mere  handful,  and  it  was  only  at  rare 
intervals  that  they  were  strong  enough  to  take  advantage  of 
some  overbearing  act  of  England,  and  bring  out  a  little  of  the 
old  ill-will. 

Having  shown  how  the  old  currents  of  anti-English  feeling 
were  almost  entirely  dried  up,  let  me  show  you  how  the  new 
currents  of  ill-feeling  began  to  flow— the  new  currents  which 
you  mistake  for  the  old. 

You  judge  rightly  when  you  say,  "  They  seemed  to  think 
that  England  was  bound  by  her  anti-slavery  antecedents  to 
discourage  to  the  utmost  any  attempts  of  the  South  to  establish 
its  independence  on  a  basis  of  slavery."4  Quite  true.  No 
man  among  us  except  the  small  party  of  anti-English  croakers 
doubted  that,  despite  sundry  minor  mistakes,  England  would 
be  heartily  with  us.  England's  help  we  did  not  want.  Eng 
land's  sympathy  we  expected  as  a  thing  of  course.  Of  course 
England  would  spurn  the  claims  to  sympathy  of  a  band  of  men 
willing  to  deluge  their  country  in  blood  sooner  than  see  the 
slighcst  barrier  to  the  spread  of  slavery ;  of  course  England 
would  loathe  a  Government  whose  chief"  corner-stone,"  accord 
ing  to  the  official  declaration  of  its  greatest  statesman,  was 
slavery, 

Few  American  patriots  will  forget  the  sadness  with  which 

they  came  out  of  that  dream.     As  unpleasant  symptoms  were 

seen  in  the  English  press  earnest  men  said  triumphantly,  "  Wait 

for  Lord  John  E-ussell  to  speak  !"    Lord  John  Ilussell  spoke, 

*  Vol.  1.  p.  65. 


9 

and  we  were  informed  that  the  war  was  a  mere  struggle  for  do 
minion  on  one  side  and  independence  on  the  other ;  that  it  was 
like  the  Grecian  struggle — Northerners  resembling  Turks, 
Southerners  Greeks.  Then  flitted  over  news  that  a  majority 
of  the  journals  had  declared  against  us  ;  that  Mr.  Lincoln  had 
been  hissed  and  Mr.  Davis  applauded  by  the  assembled  youth 
ful  wisdom  of  Oxford  :  that  an  overwhelming  majority  of  a  de 
bating  union  at  Cambridge  had  decided  their  question  in  favour 
of  the  South ;  then  came  huzzas  as  peaceful  American  ships 
were  burned  by  a  privateer ;  then  soft  reproofs  of  Southern 
atrocities,  and  loud  praise  for  the  vigorous  Southern  policy  of 
which  these  atrocities  were  the  essential  part :  then  denuncia 
tions  at  any  severity  on  the  part  of  the  North,  and  taunts  for 
Northern  weakness  in  policy,  caused  by  reluctance  to  be  severe ; 
then  a  high  carnival  of  abuse  and  caricature.  Thus  began  the 
new  current  of  dislike  for  England.  It  was  this  new  current 
which  you  saw,  not  the  old. 

Even  if  this  dislike  were  far  stronger,  it  would  not,  I  think, 
approach  the  ill-feeling  shown  by  great  numbers  in  England  to 
ward  America.  No  one  can  fail  to  be  struck  by  it  in  railway 
cars,  steamers,  omni busses,  shops,  debating  clubs,  private  resi 
dences.  I  have  never  heard  in  America  any  sueh  bitter  ex 
pressions  against  England,  as  in  England  against  America.  The 
first  kindness  shown  me  on  a  recent  visit  to  England  was  when 
an  Englishman  pointed  out  and  exulted  over  a  steamer  prepar 
ing  to  run  the  blockade.  I  have  heard  a  speaker  rejoice  be 
cause  "  that  republic  of  blackguards  is  gone  forever."  I  have 
heard  a  Bond-street  bookseller,  while  bowing  an  aristocratic 
patron  to  the  door,  declare  that  the  news  from  Fredericksburg 
did  not  please  him,  that  he  was  sorry  the  Yankees  had  not  lost 
more.  You  may  say  that  these  were  men  of  a  low  class.  Grant 
it ;  but  I  never  saw  in  America  the  man  of  a  class  so  low  as 
to  rejoice  over  the  blood  of  ten  thousand  Englishmen  slain  in 
one  battle,  and  to  clamor  for  more. 

This  awakening  of  old  hates  on  both  sides  both  of  us  regret ; 
my  only  hope  is  that  the  voices  of  the  "nobodies"'  who  fear 
not  to  brave  the  storm,  and  to  show  their  good-will  toward  a 
nation  struggling  for  life  or  death  with  slavery,  will  ring  out 
louder  and  longer  than  the  voices  of  our  revilers,  and  that  the 
kind  words  of  the  minority  will  be  remembered  when  the  scoffs 
of  the  majority  are  forgotten.  So  long  as  Mill,  and  Bright,  and 
Forster,  and  Milnes,  and  the  rest  of  the  heroic  brood  of  "  no 
bodies"  live,  America  cannot  utterly  hate  England. 


10 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  another  error  in  your  "  Diary," 
also  fundamental.  You  convey  the  idea  that  Americans  are 
utterly  intolerant  of  criticism,  that  so  long  as  a  tourist  praises 
everything  all  goes  well ;  that  so  soon  as  he  blames  anything 
all  goes  ill ;  you  support  the  idea  by  a  quotation  from  De  Toc- 
queville.* 

The  remark  of  the  great  French  writer  was  doubtless  made, 
like  some  harsh  criticisms  toward  the  end  of  your  second  vol 
ume,  during  a  momentary  loss  of  temper.  The  Avhole  force  of 
his  statement  was  broken  at  once*  by  the  reception  of  his  book 
in  America.  No  man  has  cut  more  mercilessly  than  he  into 
some  of  the  most  cherished  theories  of  American  Democracy. 
No  man  has  laboured  more  vigorously  to  prove  many  things 
defects  which  we  consider  beauties.  Yet  you  find  the  "  De 
mocracy  in  America'*  on  the  shelves  of  every  earnest  collegian 
and  every  aspiring  lawyer.  The  name  of  De  Tocqueville  is 
honoured  from  one  end  of  the  land  to  the  other. 

Why  ?  Simply  because  he  had  a  mind  large  enough  to  be 
fair.  At  neither  of  his  visits  did  he  seek  to  please  a  coterie  in 
Europe,  nor  did  he  allow  his  view  to  be  obstructed  by  a  coterie 
in  America.  Whether  in  Judge  Spencer's  library  at  Albany, 
or  in  DeBcaumont's  canoe  at  Saginaw,  his  whole  aim  was  to 
get  at  the  great  truths  good  for  all  men  to  hear.  He  traveled 
much  and  endured  much,  but  lie  never  pours  out  his  soul  in  dis 
sertations  on  the  horrors  of  milk-drinking  and  tobacco-chewing. 

So  too  Von  Raumer,  Michel  Chevalier,  Ampere.  They  said 
many  severe  things,  but  they  were  none  the  less  honoured.  In 
them  there  was  none  of  that  patronizing  way,  which  seems  the 
predestined  sin  of  English  tourists  ;  none  of  those  attempts  at 
wit,  which  compare  with  the  real  thing,  as  London  Porter  with 
sparkling  St.  Peray. 

Let  me  tell  you  frankly  why  you  and  your  sprightly  letters 
were  disliked.  It  was  desired  on  all  sides  that  you  should  be 
as  accurate  as  possible  in  your  criticisms  ;  but  the  idea  soon 
spread  that  you  had  much  unction  in  prophesying  difficulties 
which  never  came,  and  in  making  great  use  of  the  "  I  told  you 
so"  style  over  those  which  did  come.  It  was  thought  that 
when  the  question  was  between  a  body  of  men  avowedly  right 
ing  their  country  to  perpetuate  slavery,  and  a  body  of  men 
seeking  to  save  their  country,  and  quite  generally  hoping  to 
cripple  slavery,  you  preferred  —  -  the  side  where  you  found 
*  Vol.  ii.  p.  298. 


11 

the  canvass-backed  ducks,  the  mellowed  Burgundy,  the  men 
most  resembling  members  of  the  London  Clubs.  It  was  known 
that  the  newspaper  which  employed  you  had  commenced  a  cru 
sade  against  our  country,  and  it  was  thought  that  you  some 
times  showed  something  of  its  spirit — looking  down  upon  us  as 
Jupiter  upon  frogs. 

Undoubtedly,  also,  the  non-fulfilment  of  so  many  of  your 
early  prophecies,  and  the  awkward  work  which  the  national 
patriotism  made  with  your  famous  statement  regarding  the  com 
plete  apathy  of  our  people,  shook  national  respect  for  your  in 
fallibility.  Then,  too,  the  hardy  farmers,  into  whose  life  you 
penetrated  far  enough  to  see  that  they  wore  sombre  clothing, 
and  whittled  on  court-days — but  whom  I  saw,  when  the  news 
came  from  Fort  Sumpter,  with  tears  streaming  down  their 
cheeks,  hurrying  from  their  farms  to  offer  themselves  and  their 
sons  to  their  country — those  men  whom  I  saw,  in  one  of  the 
little  unromantic  towns  you  caricature,  form  two  companies  on 
Sunday  after  service— those  men  did  not  stop  to  learn  your 
merits,  but  simply  considered  you  as  but  one  more  English  tou 
rist  of  the  old  sort,  skipping  joyfully  from  North  to  South,  and 
South  to  North,  buzzing  unpleasantly  over  the  battle-fields 
where  lay  their  dead  sons  and  brothers,  and  so  at  last  they  lifted 
up  their  hard  hands  and  tried  to  brush  you  off. 

Such  were  the  reasons  why  you  were  not  always  treated  as 
you  should  have  been ;  and  I  cannot  forbear  adding  that,  in 
the  opinion  of  men  whom  we  both  hold  in  respect,  had  there 
been,  both  in  your  "letters"  and  "  Diary,*'  a  little  less  stress 
laid  on  your  petty  discomforts  and  our  petty  barbarisms — a  lit 
tle  broader  view  on  the  great  questions  at  issue — a  little  more 
allowance  for  pardonable  faults,  and,  above  all,  a  little  better 
preservation  of  your  temper  toward  the  last, — you  would  have 
gained  for  your  criticisms  close  study  and  for  yourself  lasting 
esteem. 

Yet  I  think  you  are  mistaken  in  supposing  that  the  feeling 
toward  you  was  entirely  or  mainly  a  feeling  of  dislike.  A  man 
so  frank  as  yourself  in  declaring  the  truth  to  others  will  not 
blame  me  for  assuring  you  that  at  last  you  were  far  more  fre 
quently  laughed  at  than  scolded  at.  Your  account  of  the  nick 
names  and  caricatures  bestowed  upon  you  is  correct.  The 
people  generally  figured  you  as  the  traditionally  stout  English 
gentleman,  fussy,  meddlesome,  making  much  of  a  learned  title, 
using  that  English  accent  which  is  not  duly  appreciated  by 


12 

Americans,  making  prophecies  wliicli  constantly  came  to  nought. 
The  threatening  letters  on  which  you  naturally  lay  so  much 
stress,  were,  without  doubt  additional  evidences  of  that  fault  in 
our  people  which  you  condemn  elsewhere — want  of  respect  for 
distinguished  men — in  short,  a  poor  sort  of  practical  jokes. 

The  assertion  that  there  was  needed  in  your  book  somewhat 
more  kindliness  may  be  thought  unjust.  To  cite  proofs  from 
the  end  of  the  book,  where  Mr.  Stanton's  course  causes  an  evi 
dent  ebullition,  would  be  unfair.  Let  me  cite  them  from  the 
first  part — from  the  story  of  your  first  hour  in  New  York. 

You  say  that,  after  leaving  the  Jersey  City  ferry,  you  went 
"rattling  over  a  most  abominable  pavement,  plunging  into  mud- 
holes,  squashing  throughs  now-hcaps  in  ill-lighted  narrow  streets 
of  low,  mean-looking,  wooden  houses,"*  &c. 

I  have  passed  scores  of  times  to  and  from  the  aforesaid  ferry, 
"up  all  manner  o'  streets,"  by  every  avenue  which  the  most 
bewildered  coachman  could  take ;  many  of  them  I  have  found 
narrow,  ill-lighted  and  muddy — nearly  as  much  so  as  some  far 
more  pretentious  streets  in  London.  In  some  of  them  one 
might  find  a  few  houses  of  wood ;  but  anything  like  "streets  of 
low,  mean-looking,  wooden  houses "  no  one  has  seen  there 
within  twenty  years. 

This  is,  indeed,  but  a  straw.  Let  me  show  another  straw 
in  the  current  flowing  throw  the  next  page. 

4 '  At  intervals  there  towered  up  a  block  of  brickwork  and 
stucco,  with  long  rows  of  windows  lighted  up,  tier  above  tier, 
and  a  swarming  crowd  passing  in  and  out  of  the  portals,  which 
were  recognized  as  the  barrack-like  glory  of  American  civiliza 
tion — a  Broadway  monster  hotel."! 

You  may  think  it  over-scnitiveness,  but  the  phrase  "barrack- 
like  glory  of  American  civilization  "  seems  far  more  sonorous 
than  kind.  American  civilization  is  as  yet  far  from  what  we 
hope  for  it — but  its  glory  is  not  the  hotel. 

And  if  that  part  of  your  first  hour  betrays  want  of  kindli 
ness,  another  part  betokens  want  of  fairness.  You  know  well 
that  in  England,  more  than  in  any  other  country,  the  culture, 
of  other  nations  is  judged  by  the  reality  of  their  architecture. 
Why  then  rob  the  great  Broadway  hotels  of  what  little  merit 
they  possess  by  speaking  of  them  as  "blocks  of  brickwork  and 
stucco  ?"  You  certainly  saw  them  often  enough  by  daylight 
to  know  that  not  one  is  stuccoed.  Not  one  has  any  of  the 
*  Vol.  i.  p.  12.  t  Yol.  i.  p.  13. 


13 

yellow  plastered  magnificence  of  Regent-street.  Nearly  every 
one  is  of  granite,  or  brownstone,  or  marble. 

Then,  the  frequent  mention  of  mud,  in  the  passage  quoted 
and  elsewhere.  That  the  streets  in  the  better  American  cities 
after  a  snow-storm,  are  bad,  must  be  allowed ;  but  that  their 
main  streets  are  ever  muddy,  when  judged  by  a  London  stand 
ard,  must  be  denied.  It  is  probably  the  excellent  water-supply 
in  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Boston,  and  many  smaller  cities, 
which  has  so  accustomed  the  people  to  tolerably  clean  streets, 
that  a  day  of  the  mire  so  common  during  winter  in  Piccadilly, 
Regent-street,  the  Strand,  and  Oxford-street,  would  almost 
provoke  a  rebellion.  I  have  walked  in  Broadway  when  re 
cently-fallen  snow  was  troublesome,  and  have  at  various  times 
seen  proofs  that  street-commissioners  are  not  immaculate,  but 
anything  to  equal  the  sticky  paste  of  mud  and  soot  in  which 
one  slips  and  is  bespattered  during  winter,  in  the  main  streets 
of  London,  I  never  saw. 

As  to  mud  in  Washington,  we  all  acknowledge  that  the  usu 
ally  bad  state  of  the  streets  there,  must  have  been  rendered  far 
worse  by  the  tramp  of  thousands  on  thousands  of  soldiers.  Of 
your  being  carried  oil  your  legs  by  the  water  of  a  street  gutter, 
"which  was  literally  above  my  hips"*  and  the  rest,  all  declare  it 
inexplicable ;  but  we  are  willing  to  believe  it  for  the  same  reason 
that  Sir  James  Stephen  believed  in  the  miracles  of  the  Arch 
deacon  Paris,  or  that  so  many  good  men  hold  to  Mr.  Arrow- 
smith's  vision  of  a  series  of  duels  in  an  American  railway  car — 
that  is,  because  the  testimony  is  unimpeachable. 

Having  found  fault  with  so  many  statements,  I  make  haste 
to  thank  you  for  quite  as  many.  You  complain  of  our  system 
of  street  conveyance,  and  justly.  A  worse  system  exists  not 
in  the  civilized  world.  The  cab  system,  so  useful  and  reason 
able  in  Europe,  is,  in  America — thanks  to  the  monopoly  en 
joyed  by  hackmen — unknown.  A  more  inconvenient  plan  for  the 
public,  and  a  more  short-sighted  plan  for  the  owners  of  public 
vehicles,  could  not  be  devised. 

Your  criticism,  too,  of  our  hotel  system  is  just.  An  Ameri 
can  hotel  before  organization  is  very  often  excellent,  but  after 
organization  it  is  frequently  wretched.  For  the  first  step  taken 
by  the  proprietors  is  frequently  to  enthrone  in  it  some  individ 
ual  with  little  brains,  much  gold  chain,  and  immense  self-es 
teem,  and  to  invest  him  with  the  powers  of  a  Neapolitan  Bour- 
*  Vol.  ii.  p.  279. 


14 

bon.  Mr.  Everett,  Mr.  Bancroft,  or  Mr.  Seward,  enter  in  gen 
tlemen's  dress  and  style,  and,  if  unrecognized,  they  are  merci 
lessly  relegated  to  the  skies,  or  to  apartments  as  near  them  as 
the  sovereign  in  the  office  controls.  Wash.  Goss,  Conductor 
on  the  Saccharissa  and  Swampville  Railroad,  or  Jeff.  Boss, 
Agent  of  the  Hoosier  River  Steamboat  Company,  enter  loud  and 
radiant  with  jewels,  and  they  are  waited  upon  to  the  first  floor. 

Then,  too,  the  bill  of  fare  is  often  splendid,  but  to  catch  the 
waiters  frequently  enough  to  get  a  Christian  man's  dinner,  or 
to  make  them  understand  the  names  of  any  but  the  plainest 
dishes,  is  in  very  many  hotels  a  miracle. 

You  are  also  entirely  right  in  blaming  the  wretched  arrange 
ments  for  warmth  and  ventilation  on  almost  all  our  railways. 
I  trust  that  Mr.  John  Murray  will,  some  day,  by  means  of  his 
hand-book  indications,  aid  in  reforming  these  abuses  in  Ameri 
ca,  as  he  has  done  in  the  rest  of  the  world. 

It  is  also  gratifying  to  see  that  you  are  sound  on  the  saliva 
question. 

But  I  come  to  some  of  your  judgments  on  more  important 
matters  in  American  life  where  you  are  manifestly  Avrong. 

Having  stated  that  "in  New  Orleans,  Montgomery,  Mobile, 
Jackson,  and  Memphis,  there  is  a  reckless  and  violent  condi 
tion  of  society  unfavorable  to  civilization,  and  but  little  hopeful 
of  the  future,"  you  say,  "  The  state  of  legal  protection  for  the 
most  serious  interests  of  man,  considered  as  a  civilized  and 
social  creature,  which  prevails  in  America,  could  not  be  tolera 
ted  for  an  instant,  and  would  generate  a  revolution  in  the  worst 
governed  country  in  Europe."* 

Now,  Dr.  Russell,  although  the  portly  Englishman  with 
whom  I  recently  crossed  the  ocean  might  be  excused  for  taking 
a  bowie-knife  to  England  as  a  souvenir  of  his  trip  from  New 
York  to  Niagara,  and  although  it  was  the  most  natural  thing  in 
the  world  for  him  to  have  a  pocket  made  for  it  at  the  back  of 
his  neck,  wherewith  to  astonish  his  English  friends,  you  have 
no  excuse.  Though  the  state  of  things  be  so  terrible  as  you 
describe  it  in  the  Southern  cities  you  have  named,  you  know 
that  throughout  the  Free  States  there  is  no  such  insecurity. 
Why  not  have  stated  this  ?  Why  not  have  stated  the  great 
reason  WHY  for  years  life  and  property  have  been  in  the  North 
secure,  and  in  the  South  the  sport  of  pistol  and  bowie-knife  ? 
That  you  should  neglect  this  all-important  distinction  in  your 

*  Vol.  ii.  p.  39. 


15 

"Letters"  Americans  can  understand;  but  your  "Diary"  was 
not  to  be  published  in  the  Times. 

And  if  that  neglect  was  owing  to  lack  of  time  or  space,  why 
drag  iii  the  statement  that,  "The  most  absolute  and  despotic 
rule  under  which  a  man's  life  and  property  are  safe,  is  better 
than  the  largest  measure  of  democratic  freedom  which  deprives 
the  freeman  of  any  security  for  either." 

For  this  proclamation  in  this  place  must  seem  as  utterly  su 
perfluous  to  any  fair  man,  as  the  Excelsior  banner  in  the  hands 
of  Longfellow's  Alpine  climber  seemed  useless  to  Albert 
Smith.  If  it  is  a  statement  of  your  taste  in  politics,  the 
only  answer  needed  is  that  the  great  majority  in  America 
can  not  agree  with  you,  for  they  would  prefer  the  most 
stormy  democracy  to  the  most  sunny  despotism.  If  it  is 
meant  to  convey  the  idea  that  life  or  property  are  a  whit  less 
safe  in  the  Free  States  of  America  than  under  any  European 
monarchy  you  can  be  refuted  in  an  instant.  Is  life  or  property 
more  secure  in  Spain,  or  Italy,  or  Russia  ?  Xay,  take  your 
own  England.  Have  not  the  people  of  your  metropolis  been 
in  paroxysms  of  fear  and  rage  during  this  whole  winter,  at  the 
want  of  security  for  life  and  property  ?  Both  of  us  have  trav 
eled  thousands  of  miles  in  every  direction  in  America,  and 
neither  of  us  when  in  the  Free  States  has  feared  to  go  where 
he  pleased.  Though  England  has  sent  America  many  expert 
criminals,  neither  of  us,  I  dare  say,  ever  hesitated  to  take  the 
nearest  way  between  any  two  points  in  any  Northern  city.— 
How  is  it  in  London  ?  It  is  but  a  few  weeks  since  kind  friends 
in  the  great  metropolis  made  it  a  part  of  their  duty  to  tell  me 
what  streets  were  to  be  avoided  after  four  o'clock  in  the  afternoon 
— and  those  streets  were  often  broad  and  in  the  heart  of  the  city. 
Compare,  too,  if  you  will,  the  security  in  the  country  at  large. 
I  can  name  many  large  counties  in  America  where  a  murder 
has  not  been  committed  in  twenty  years ;  of  how  many  assem 
blages  of  the  same  size  could  that  be  said  in  England  ?  And 
if  you  speak  of  security  of  property  from  its  worse  foes,  has 
America  ever  surpassed  the  frauds  of  Paul  and  Roupell,  and  a 
score  which  have  been  within  a  few  years  paraded  in  your  pub 
lic  prints  ? 

May  it  not  be,  Dr.  Russell,  that  in  this,  as  in  many  other 
things,  you  have  reasoned  rather  from  your  theory  of  what 
every  republic  must  be,  than  from  your  observation  of  what  the 
American  Republic  really  is?. 


16 

You  also  find  fault  with  a  want  of  veneration  in  many  of  our 
people.  It  is  a  fault ;  but,  after  all,  is  it  worse  than  its  oppo 
site  ?  No  Englishman  can  be  more  painfully  struck  by  the 
want  of  veneration  in  many  Americans,  than  Americans  are 
pained  by  servility  in  many  Englishmen.  I  recall  a  guide  at 
one  of  the  great  English  castles  whose  mania  for  taking  off  his 
hat  and  bowing  at  my  least  word  was  so  distressing  that  at 
last  I  gave  up  the  dearest  privilege  a  Yankee  knows,  that  of 
asking  questions.  It  was  the  only  way  to  be  relieved  from 
that  nightmare  of  servility. 

You  lay  stress  also  on  the  American  use  of  patriotic  phrases. 
As  expounding  your  views  take  your  account  of  General  Scott's 
speech  to  a  crowd  at  Washington : 

"Out  the  General  went  to  them,  and  addressed  a  few  words 
to  his  audience  in  the  usual  style  about  '  rallying  round,  and 
dying  gloriously,'  arid  'old  nag  of  our  country,'  and  all  that 
sort  of  thing."* 

There  is  in  this  a  trifle  too  much  of  the  usual  English  de  haul 
en  has  manner.  Let  that  pass ;  but,  Sir,  did  there  never  flash 
into  your  mind  a  suspicion  that  the  words  you  quote  might 
mean  something?  May  it  not  have  been  that  an  old  general 
who  had,  for  half  a  century,  shown  that  he  loved  his  country 
better  than  life,  was  deeply  in  earnest  ?  May  it  not  have  been 
that  those  listening  volunteers — assembled  from  all  parts  of  the 
North — offering  property,  family-ties,  and  life,  were  in  earnest, 
and  that  the  words  so  ridiculous  to  you  were  to  them  good 
words — appealing  to  their  souls?  I  saw  many  of  them  go 
from  the  villages  of  New  York  and  the  West,  and  from  my  own 
lecture-room ;  near  relatives,  dear  friends,  much-loved  pupils 
were  among  them.  I  know  what  high  motives  were  theirs  ; 
what  homes  they  left ;  what  hopes  they  sacrificed ;  what  sad 
fate  many  cheerfully  accepted.  I  have  heard  quiet  last  words 
from  them  as  noble  as  any  in  the  records  of  Roman  devotion. 
I  think  of  their  graves,  and  I  ask,  do  you  not  take  too  much 
upon  you  when  you  so  snecringly  speak  of  that  communion  be 
tween  the  veteran  General  and  men  like  these,  as  "in  the  usual 
style,"  and  "all  that  sort  of  thing?" 

In  various  parts  of  your  work  you  deprecate  American  boast 
ing.     You  are  quite  right ;   yet,   would  it  not  have  been  more 
fair  to  own  that  it  is  a  failing  which  the  Yankee  comes  by  quite 
naturally  ?    What  are  '  'Eule  Britannia, "  and  the  like,  but  moth- 
*  Vol.  i.  p.  106. 


17 

ers  of  Fourth-of-July  orations  ?  What  toast  of  American  gen 
eral  or  admiral  ever  resounded  so  loudly  and  came  to  nought  so 
ludicrously  as  the  invitations  given  by  a  certain  English  ad 
miral  to  a  dinner  at  St.  Petersburg  ?  I  have  heard  an  English 
speaker  boast  that  English  soldiers  had  never  retreated  in  any 
battle ;  and,  though  I  have  heard  some  amazing  specimens  of 
"tall  talk"  in  America,  they  were  merely  nothing  compared  to 
the  calmly  majestic  brag  of  an  English  debater,  who,  arguing 
for  the  enthronement  of  Prince  Alfred  in  Greece,  and  speaking 
of  the  opposing  argument  that  the  Treaty  of  Vienna  opposed  it, 
said  "but  the  Treaty  of  Vienna  has  already  been  broken.  It 
declared  that  no  Bonaparte  should  ever  ascend  the  throne  of 
France,  and  yet  a  Bonaparte  now  sits  on  that  throne ;  though, 
to  confess  the  truth,  I  don't  think  that  England  ought  to 
have  permitted  it."  What  masses  of  innocent  brag  were  com 
pressed  into  that  sentence  !  But  all  the  audience  adopted  the 
idea  and  applauded ;  and  so  would  I,  had  not  all  my  powers 
been  absorbed  in  the  mental  effort  I  was  making  to  know  how 
England  was  to  hinder  France  from  choosing  Napoleon  III. 
And  are  you  not  guilty  also  of  something  much  like  it,  when 
you  say,  "I  am  opposed  to  national  boasting,  but  I  do  firmly 
believe  that  10,000  British  regulars,  or  12,000  French,  with  a 
proper  establishment  of  artillery  and  cavalry,  would  not  only 
entirely  repulse  this  army  with  the  greatest  ease,  under  com 
petent  commanders,  but  that  they  could  attack  them  and  march 
into  Washington  over  them  or  with  them,  whenever  they 
pleased."*  In  the  light  of  old  struggles  between  "British  reg 
ulars"  and  the  rawest  American  militia,  the  statement  looks 
much  like  boasting ;  but  when  one  sees  you  care  to  have  two 
thousand  more  French  than  English,  and  remembers  the  war 
of  the  Crimea,  you  are  seen  to  be  the  contributor  of  as  splendid 
a  specimen  as  was  ever  seen. 

May  it  not  be  that  this  fault,  which  you  suppose  peculiarly 
American,  is  inherited,  and  is,  after  all,  only  one  among  the 
many  proofs  that  "  blood  will  tell  ?" 

But  nowhere  are  you  more  vigorous  than  in  denouncing  the 
sins  of  the  American  press.  In  this,  too,  you  are  right  up  to  a 
certain  point,  but  was  it  fair  to  involve  all  in  the  same  condem 
nation  ?  One  of  your  successors  has  chosen  to  show  American 
sentiment  by  quoting  from  a  little  journal  supported  by  a  clique 
in  New  York,  and  whose  name  was  never  heard  of  by  one  in 
*  Vol.  ii.  p.  158. 


18 

ten  thousand  outside  that  city ;  but  do  you  not  commit  a  simi 
lar  fault  in  some  of  your  denunciations  ? 

Granted  that  some  of  our  journals  are  vile — especially  in  their 
treatment  of  yourself,  and  Great  Britain — in  what  attribute  of 
decency  are  they  surpassed  by  many  of  the  most  influential 
London  journals  at  this  moment  ? 

Look  at  the  absurdities  regarding  Mr.  Lincoln's  guillotines, 
and  Gen.  Butler's  executions  ;  look  at  the  welcome  given  to  a 
recent  importation  of  American  pot-house  slang,  regarding  "long 
legged  Lincoln,"  "chuckle-headed  M'Clellan,"  and  "Bill  Sew- 
ard ;"  look  at  the  piety  shown  in  the  Scripture  defence  of  slave 
ry  ;  look  at  the  logic  shown  in  the  argument  that  Wilberforce 
would,  if  living,  frown  upon  the  Union  and  Anti-Slavery  side, 
because  a  son  of  his  chooses  to  give  it  the  cold  shoulder ;  as  if 
any  Wilberforce  now  alive  would  deign  to  represent  the  '  'Clap- 
ham  sect"  in  anything. 

Or,  take  matters  entirely  outside  the  American  question. — 
For  decency,  take  the  epithets  applied  by  leading  religious  jour 
nals  to  Bishop  Colenso,  and  by  leading  political  journals  to  the 
clergymen  and  laymen  who  have  taken  part  in  the  Emancipa 
tion  meetings  ;  for  hopeful  piety  take  the  advertisements  of  deal 
ers  in  Church  preferment,  and  in  "lithographed  sermons  impos 
sible  to  be  distinguished  from  ordinary  handwriting;"  for  in 
corruptibility,  the  recent  proceedings  between  an  English  news 
paper  and  the  representative  of  France. 

You  make  some  quiet  fun  over  the  carefulness  of  certain 
American  newspapers  in  chronicling  the  doings  of  Mrs.  Lincoln, 
and  we  will  laugh  with  you,  not  doubting  that  afterward  you 
will  laugh  with  us  at  far  greater  absurdities  of  the  sort  in  the 
English  newspapers. 

You  lay  stress  also  on  the  unreliabilty  of  telegraphic  news  in 
American  papers.  It  is  an  evil ;  but  it  seems  to  me  not  half  so 
great  an  evil  that,  in  a  nation  feverish  with  civil  war,  telegrams 
should  catch  the  general  spirit,  as  that  newspapers  in  England, 
cool  and  collected,  should  submit  to  receive  such  telegrams  as 
the  Renter  agency  has  often  sent  them. 

The  bad  taste  of  many  American  newspaper  correspondents, 
as  typified  in  the  attempt  made  by  one  of  them  to  draw  from 
you  details  of  an  evening  at  the  President's  house,  you  treated 
as  it  deserved  ;*  but  to  most  Americans  your  merit  in  the  prem- 
seems  somewhat  diminished,  when  they  see  all  those  details 
*  Vol-  ji.  p.  66. 


19 

Spread  out  before  the  world  in  your  "Diary."  Indeed,  tins 
letter  would  be  wanting  in  the  frankness  which  you  so  much 
prize,  were  it  to  conceal  the  fact  that  since  the  publication  of 
those  detairs  by  yourself,  it  is  very  difficult  to  show  to  most  of  my 
countrymen,  that  the  difference  between  yourself  and  that  New 
York  correspondent  is  so  much  a  difference  in  kind  as  in  degree. 

This  brings  me  to  that  part  of  your  work  which,  among 
Americans  most  conversant  with  English  usages,  caused  more 
surprise  than  any  other — your  fulness  of  detail  in  regard  to 
sundry  social  circles,  to  which  you  were  admitted.  It  may  have 
been  owing  to  our  provincial  spirit  that  one  of  our  own  writers 
was  severely  criticised  among  us  some  years  since  for  doing  by 
England  what  you  have  thus  done  by  America.  Therefore,  let 
the  epithet  "Poor  President*'  applied  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  the  story 
of  Mrs.  Lincoln's  meanness,  told  upon  the  authority  of  an  un 
named  French  master  of  languages,  the  mention  of  Mr.  Seward 
as  "  bursting  with  the  importance  of  State  mysteries" — and 
the  tinge  of  ridicule  in  your  sketches  of  the  conversation  of 
Gen.  Scott — be  acknowledged  as  in  the  purest  taste,  even 
though,  as  in  Gen.  Scott's  case,  your  observations  were  made 
while  you  were  his  guest.  But  there  is  another  point,  on  which 
Americans  can  not  make  such  a  concession. 

I  take  as  my  text  your  account  of  an  evening  at  the  house 
of  "Mr.  B."  Having  used  the  initial  and  then  having  de 
scribed  him  so  that  no  one  can  fail  to  know  him — having  spoken 
graciously  of  his  pictures,  statues,  furniture,  and  guests,  you 
speak  of  the  trouble  one  would  find  it  to  "define  exactly  the 
difference  between  the  lustrous,  highly-jewelled,  well-greaved 
Achaian  of  New  York,  and  the  very  less  effective  and  showy 
creature,  who  will  in  eveiy  society  over  the  world  pass  muster 
as  a  gentleman."* 

Your  idea  is  not  entirely  clear,  but  if  you  intended  to  con 
demn  the  young  New  Yorkers  whom  you  saw  afterwards  "at 
their  club  dicing  for  drinks,  and  oathing  for  nothing,"  let  me 
assure  you  that  Mr.  George  William  Curtis  taught  our  people 
long  ago  to  despise  them.  But  if,  as  seems  more  probable,  it 
is  a  general  criticism  on  those  assembled,  among  whom,  by 
reading  the  context,  we  find  Mr.  Bancroft,  Mr.  Horatio  Sey 
mour,  Mr.  Tilden,  and  "Mr.  B.,"  pardon  me  for  saying  that 
Americans,  no  matter  how  bitterly  opposed  to  those  gentlemen 
politically,  muSt  deny  your  right.  When  you  came  prominently 
*  Vol.  i.  p.  32. 


20 

before  the  public,  the  main  facts  of  your  biography  became 
public  property,  and  Americans  see  nothing  either  in  your  per 
sonal  annals  or  associations,  honorable  though  they  may  have 
been,  which  authorizes  you  to  sit  in  judgment  upon  the  quality 
of  those  men. 

And  now  a  few  words  on  the  comparisons,  into  which  your 
readers  are  led  between  Free-State  and  Slave-State  society. 

For  two  things  struck  off  in  the  South  you  deserve  praise. 
First  of  these  is  your  sketch  of  a  Slave-sale.*  That  alone 
would  make  every  patriotic  American  desire  success  for  your 
book.  Let  the  whole  world  accept  the  errors  of  the  "Diary," 
since  it  contains  that  sketch  as  their  antidote.  The  second  of 
these  meritorious  points  is  that  which  pricks  one  of  the  most 
laughable  bubbles  the  slave-owning  class  are  so  fond  of  blowing. 

"We  all  have  our  little  or  big  weaknesses.  I  see  no  traces 
of  Cavalier  descent  in  the  names  of  Huger.  Rose,  Manning, 
Chesnut,  and  Pickens."f 

Quite  right ;  and  a  little  more  intercourse  with  the  people  of 
the  North  would  have  enabled  you  to  add  that  were  they  so 
foolish  as  some  of  their  Southern  brethren  in  parading  ancestors, 
they  could  show  quite  as  many  names  honored  in  the  history 
of  England,  France,  and  Holland. 

But  while  you  have  thus  cut  into  some  Southern  follies,  I 
fear  that  you  have  strengthened  some  Southern  fallacies,  and 
among  them  the  idea  that  on  the  plantations  is  found  a  higher 
civilization  than  in  the  North. 

It  is  evident  from  your  sketch  that  you  fell  upon  at  least  one 
favorable  specimen  of  Southern  country  life,  but  a  close  study 
of  the  whole  country  would  have  shown  you,  for  one  such  abode 
of  refinement  in  the  South,  twenty  in  the  North.  Many  im 
partial  accounts  have  been  given  of  that  peculiar  life,  and  even 
from  these  you  will  find  that,  outside  a  few  districts  into  which 
some  rays  are  thrown  from  such  cities  as  Charleston,  or  Savan 
nah,  or  New  Orleans,  it  is  very  far  from  what  is  considered  by 
the  world  at  large,  a  good  grade  of  civilization.  Your  pictures 
of  planting  life  have  often  the  fault  of  Chateaubriand's 
pictures  of  Indian  life.  The  difference  between  the  real  and 
ideal  planter  is  quite  as  great  as  the  difference  between  the  real 
and  ideal  Indian. 

If,  instead  of  whirling  through  long  lines  of  Northern  towns, 
with  a  laugh  at  their  comical  names,  you  could  have  given  them 
*  Vol.  i.  chap.  22.  f  Vol.  i.*p.  171. 


21 

some  of  the  time  bestowed  on  canvass-backs  and  prairie-chick 
ens,  you  would  have  found  great  numbers  of  men  who,  in  their 
lives  and  houses,  indicate  a  much  nearer  approach  to  the  best 
European  culture  than  you  found  on  Southern  plantations. 

But  to  compare  the  two  phases  of  American  civilization  at 
all  points  would  require  a  quarto ;  let  me  then  narrow  the  com 
parison  to  two  leading  points,  which  you  have  yourself  sugges 
ted  ;  one,  as  to  material,  the  other,  as  to  intellectual  develop 
ment. 

Your  mistakes  on  the  first  can  be  best  illustrated  by  an  ex 
tract  from  the  account  of  your  journey  from  the  Southern  ex 
tremity  of  Illinois  to  Chicago. 

"  It  would  be  very  wrong  to  judge  of  the  condition  of  a  peo 
ple  from  the  windows  of  a  railway  carriage,  but  the  external 
aspect  of  the  settlements  along  the  line,  far  superior  to  that  of 
slave  hamlets,  does  not  equal  my  expectations."*  Then  follow 
some  sketches  not  at  all  flattering  to  the  Illinois  villages  and 
farm-houses. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  two  very  important  elements  in 
the  comparison  which  strangely  do  not  seem  to  have  occurred 
to  you. 

First,  the  fact  that  until  recently  Southern  Illinois  has  been 
notoriously  under  the  influence  of  neighboring  Slave-State  so 
ciety.  Had  you  looked  into  its  geography,  you  would  have 
seen  that  it  is  deeply  wedged  into  slave-owning  regions ;  had 
you  looked  into  its  history,  you  would  have  seen  that  the  great 
body  of  its  early  inhabitants  came  from  Slave  States ;  had  you 
asked  any  of  your  neighbors  on  the  railway,  they  would  have 
told  you  that  on  account  of  the  mental  and  moral  darkness  aris 
ing  from  Slave  State  influences,  Southern  Illinois  has  been  known 
throughout  the  Union  under  the  nick-name  of  "Egypt."  Yet 
this  is  the  district  you  choose  as  representative  of  the  North ! 

Again,  a  great  number  of  the  towns  and  farm-houses  you 
noted,  have  sprung  up  since  the  recent  opening  of  the  Illinois 
Central  Railway.  To  be  disappointed  because  they  do  not  yet 
greatly  excel  far  older  towns  in  the  Slave  States,  is  as  unreas 
onable  as  to  lament  because  a  child  of  four  years  has  not  out 
grown  a  dwarf  of  forty. 

Take  now  the  other  leading  comparison. 

Describing  a  planter's  mansion,  which  was  certainly  of  a 
type  far  from  common  in  the  South,  you  say:  "Paintings from 
*  Vol.  ii.  p.  83. 


22 

Italy  illustrate  the  walls  in  juxtaposition  with  interesting  por 
traits,  *  *  *  and  one  portrait  of  Benjamin  West  claims 
for  itself  such  honor  as  his  own  pencil  can  give.  An  excellent 
library,  filled  with  collections  of  French  and  English  classics, 
and  with  those  ponderous  editions  of  Voltaire,  Rousseau,  the 
'  Memoires  pour  servir '  "books  of  travel  and  history  which  de 
lighted  our  forefathers  in  the  last  century,  and  many  works  of 
American  and  general  history,  afford  ample  occupation  for  a 
rainy  day."* 

The  idea  strengthened  by  this,  in  connection  with  certain  other 
passages  is,  that  though  the  material  development — the  stalk 
or  trunk  of  civilization — that  which  comes  by  working  and 
trading,  is  stronger  at  the  North,  the  intellectual  development— 
the  bloom  of  civilization — that  which  comes  of  leisure  and  cul 
ture,  is  stronger  at  the  South. 

Let  me  point  out  an  easy  way  of  convincing  yourself  of  the 
error  of  this ;  let  me  show  how  the  free  system  proves  its  su 
periority  over  the  slave  system,  as  well  in  the  bloom  as  in  the 
stalk  of  civilization. 

Ask  any  one  conversant  with  the  affairs  of  Turner,  or  Ary 
Scheffer,  or  Meissonnier,  or  Aschenbach,  in  what  part  of  Amer 
ica  are  the  great  majority  of  their  pictures  which  have  crossed 
the  ocean.  Ask  also  the  leading  sculptors. .  Go  into  the  gal 
leries  of  Europe,  and  put  the  same  question  to  the  best  copyists. 
You  shall  find  that  an  immense  majority  of  their  works  are 
spreading  good  influences  in  the  Free  States.  I  could  name  to 
you  inland  towns,  both  east  and  west,  where  "loan  exhibitions" 
of  paintings  and  sculpture  have  been  held  such  as  no  possible 
combination  of  planters  could  have  produced.  *  As  to  Benjamin 
West  and  Copley,  whom  you  mention  as  contributing  to  the 
beauty  of  the  planter's  establishment,  a  very  little  study  of  their 
biographies  would  show  you  that  their  main  American  works 
are  to  be  found  in  the  Free  States.  The  picture  which  many 
of  West's  admirers  thought  his  greatest,  "gives  such  honor  as 
his  pencil  can  give"  to  the  collection  of  a  gentleman  in  Ohio. 

I  might  present  many  similar  facts,  but  I  shall  simply  ask 
you  to  look  over  the  list  of  successful  American  painters  and 
sculptors,  and  to  note  how,  for  one  from  the  Slave  States,  there 
are  a  dozen  from  the  Free  States. 

So,  too,  as  to  books.     I  will  not  lay  stress  on  the  fact  that 
the  Census  Reports  show  the  public  and  private  libraries  of  the 
*  Vol.  i.  p.  187. 


23 

newest  Free  States,  in  almost  eveiy  case,  superior  to  those  of 
the  oldest  Slave  States.  Question  the  men  in  London  who 
have  acted  as  agents  for  Americans  in  the  purchase  of  the  choi 
cest  books,  you  shall  find  some  facts  still  more  surprising. 
There  shall  be  given  you  the  names  of  several  private  libraries 
in  the  Free  States  each,  more  valuable  than  all  the  private  libra 
ries  of  the  Slave  States  together,  and  you  shall  find  that  some 
of  the  best  of  these  are  far  inland.  You  shall  find  that  there 
are  private  libraries  a  thousand  miles  and  more  from  the  great 
cities  of  the  East,  where  are  ranged  all  the  books  you  name  as 
the  glories  of  your  planter  friend's  library,  but  where  the}'  are 
by  no  means  the  choicest  books.  To  speak  only  of  the  newest 
and  least  wealthy  of  the  North- Western  States,  you  can  find 
excellent  private  collections  of  books,  not  merely  in  their  prin 
cipal  cities  but  in  the  interior  which  seemed  to  you  so  ludicrous 
ly  rude.  Come  again  through  them — do  not  content  yourself 
with  such  an  exploration  as  the  one  you  have  already  made, 
hurrying  over  three  hundred  miles  in  ten  hours — and  you  shall 
be  shown  some  of  these  collections ;  and,  among  others,  in  a 
little  village  twenty  miles  from  a  railway,  at  the  house  of  a  gen 
tleman  who,  amid  the  cares  of  business,  has  found  time  for 
kindlier  pursuits,  you  shall  find  not  only  choice  paintings  and 
engravings,  but  a  large  library  of  rare  works  in  early  English 
and  Shaksperian  literature,  such  as  a  duke  might  envy. 

For  these  libraries,  quietly  growing  in  all  parts  of  the  Free 
States,  the  shops  and  stalls  of  Paris,  and  London,  and  Berlin 
have  been  ransacked.  Many  a  Caxton  or  Aldine  or  Elzevir 
has  been  carried  oif  over  the  heads  of  English  bidders  to  grace 
some  little  Northern  library.  Note,  too,  the  fact  that  within  a 
few  years  several  celebrated  private  libraries  in  France  and  Ger 
many  have  been  bought^br  public  or  private  libraries  in  Amer 
ica,  and  that  these  have  gone  almost  without  exception  into  the 
Northern  States. 

Of  course  I  do  not  claim  this  as  the  best  growth  of  civiliza 
tion.  Good  is  the  accumulating  of  good  old  books,  but  far 
better  is  the  originating  of  good  new  books,  and  here,  too,  Free- 
State  civilization  justifies  itself.  Look  into  the  list  of  Ameri 
can  writers  known  to  the  world,  and  make  the  comparison  be 
tween  those  who  have  arisen  in  the  Free  and  those  in  the  Slave 
States. 

And  now,  in  all  diffidence,  let  me  make  a  few  notes  on  a  verj 
different  matter — your  reasoning  on  American  military  affairs. 


24 

After  enjoying  your  descriptions  of  military  scenes  in  former 
times,  it  is  too  late  to  deny  your  excellence  in  your  peculiar  de 
partment,  but  may  you  not  have  erred  in  the  methods  of  criti 
cism  used  in  your  "  Diary  ?"  An  immense  army  had  to  be 
raised  in  a  few  weeks,  an  army  which  has  finally  become  the 
largest  in  the  world,  and  in  a  nation  which  had  been  for  many 
years  so  devoted  to  peace,  that  hardly  the  germ  of  a  military 
organization  had  been  preserved.  To  have  given  it  a  fruitful 
criticism  would  have  been  a  kindness,  but  merely  sneering  at 
its  short  comings  could  do  no  good.  Even  when  it  showed 
some  good  symptoms,  your  praise  has  a  taste  not  at  all  pleasant. 
For  example: 

"  The  men  like  artillery  and  take  to  it  naturally,  being  in 
that  respect  something  like  the  natives  of  India" 

I  have  italicised  the  portion  which  could  hardly  have  a  pleas 
ant  sound  to  an  American.  So  eminent  an  authority  as  your 
self  could  not  surely  have  been  at  a  loss  for  a  comparison  far 
more  pleasing.  You  know,  of  course,  that  the  desire  to  serve 
in  the  artillery  proves  not  half  so  strong  a  resemblance  to  Se 
poys  as  to  the  more  thoughtful  portion  of  European  armies. 
Should  you  doubt  that,  go  into  the  lecture-rooms  of  a  German 
university,  and  you  will  find  the  artillery  uniform  on  nearly  ev 
ery  student  serving  out  his  military  term. 

As  to  your  account  of  the  battle  of  Bulls'  Run,  I  am  willing 
to  allow  that,  humiliating  as  was  that  event,  your  sketch  con 
trasts  most  favourably  with  the  comments  of  some  of  your 
countrymen.  A  prominent  Eeview  declared  that  the  Americans 
were  showing  the  world  some  things  such  as  had  never  been 
seen  before,  and  one  of  these  things  was  the  panic  at  Bulls'  Bun. 

It  would  have  been  a  graceful  act  for  you  to  have  forestalled 
such  criticism  in  your  "  Letters,"  or  to.have  answered  it  in  your 
44  Diary."  Not  to  speak  of  more  recent  panics,  you  could  have 
told  them  that,  at  the  beginning  of  the  great  wars  of  the  French 
Revolution,  two  separate  armies,  one  under  Dillon,  the  other 
under  Biron,  at  the  first  sight  of  the  enemy  threw  down  their 
arms,  ran  with  all  their  might,  and  in  one  case  murdered  the 
general  who  attempted  to  rally  them.  And  you  might  have 
added  that  these  were  the  soldiers  who  a  few  years  later  swept 
over  Europe.  But  this  is  a  slight  sin  of  omission  ;  let  me  show 
in  another  criticism  a  sin  of  commission.  Take  your  notice  of 
the  capture  of  Fort  Clark  and  Fort  Hatteras : 

44  It  would  seem  as  if  the  North  were  perfectly  destitute  of 
common  sense.  Here  they  are  as  rampant  because  they  have 


25 

succeeded  with  an  overwhelming  fleet  in  shelling  out  the  defen 
ders  of  some  poor  unfinished  earthworks  on  a  spit  of  sand  on 
the  coast  of  North  Carolina,  as  if  they  had  already  crashed  the 
Southern  rebellion.  They  affect  to  consider  this  achievement 
a  counterpoise  to  Bulls'  Run."* 

Now,  although  the  success  at  Fort  Hatteras  was  not  so  strik 
ing  as  many  since,  it  would  seem  to  be  something  greater  than 
the  petty  affair  you  make  it,  when  it  is  known  that  the  rebel 
loss  in  killed,  wounded  and  prisoners  was  nearly  nine  hundred. 
But  far  more  than  that.  Your  account  seems  to  prove  not  so 
clearly  that  the  North  is  "perfectly  destitute  of  common  sense" 
as  that  your  acknowledged  ability  to  prophesy  evils,  which  did 
not  come,  was  fully  equalled  by  your  inability  to  prophesy  good 
which  did  come.  For  you  foresaw  not  one  of  the  successes  to 
which  the  Hatteras  affair  was  the  necessary  prelude,  successes 
like  that  at  Roanoke  Island,  where  the  Confederates  lost,  be 
side  killed  and  wounded,  2,500  prisoners  and  40  cannon;  like 
that  at  Newben,  where  they  lost  what  was  far  more  precious  to 
them.  Strange  that  one  so  gifted  in  military  affairs  should  not 
have  seen  that  the  conquest  was  not  a  "spit  of  sand,"  but  a 
most  important  inland  communication  by  water !  Strange  that 
one  so  skilled  in  prophecy  should  not  have  foreseen  what  fol 
lowed  so  soon  from  the  Hatteras  affair — the  conquest  and  occu 
pancy  of  the  whole  North  Carolina  coast. 

Some  of  the  most  laughable  faults  of  English  tourists  are 
made  in  their  sketches  of  American  geography,  and  you  seem 
to  follow  here  in  the  steps  of  your  predecessors.  Certainly  you 
were  as  ludicrously  at  fault  in  regard  to  North  Carolina,  when 
you  reasoned  upon  the  conquest  of  the  "spit  of  sand,"  as  in 
regard  to  Massachusetts  when  you  spoke  of  one  of  her  regi 
ments  as  containing  "fisherman  from  New  IIavenJ*\  or  as  in 
regard  to  Kentucky  when  you  mistook  Nashville  for  Louisville. 

One  thing  more  in  this  department  of  your  work.  Your 
mode  of  gaining  ideas  of  the  temperament  of  the  army  must 
seem  very  fallacious  to  any  one  who  has  tried  to  study  a  for 
eign  people. 

To  find  what  information  random  conversation  with  grum 
blers  can  give  you,  tiy  any  army ;  but  let  me  suggest  an  easier 
way  of  convincing  yourself  of  the  absurdity  of  your  method. 

Go  into  the  neighborhood  of  Westminster  Abbey,  pretend 
yourself  a  foreigner,  and  take  one  of  the  guides  who  lurk  there. 
*  Vol.  ii.  p.  324.     |  Vol.  ii.  p.  319. 


26 

Give  him  his  cue,  and  you  shall  be  told  the  most  astounding 
stories  of  the  miseries  of  the  people — their  hate  for  monarchy, 
hierarchy  and  aristocracy — their  yearning  for  democracy ;  you 
shall  have  not  merely  hints  of  treason,  but  sketches  of  plots.  It  is 
much  to  be  feared  that  some  worthy  Americans  have,  by  these 
individuals,  been  hindered  from  the  calmness  of  thought  so 
necessary  in  those  hallowed  precincts. 

But  your  reasoning  on  American  military  matters  is  by  no 
means  so  objectionable  as  your  reasoning  on  political  matters. 

Thus :  ' '  The  American,  when  he  seeks  to  prove  that  the 
Southern  States  have  no  right  to  revolt  from  a  confederacy  of 
States  created  by  revolt,  has,  by  the  principles  on  which  he 
justifies  his  own  revolution,  placed  between  himself  and  the 
European  a  great  gulf  in  the  level  of  argument.  According  to 
the  deeds  and  words  of  Americans,  it  is  difficult  to  see  why 
South  Carolina  should  not  use  the  rights  claimed  for  each  of 
the  Thirteen  Colonies."* 

A  true  American  labors  under  no  such  difficulty  as  you  sup 
pose,  for  he  has  taken  the  pains  to  examine  the  subject,  and 
knows  that  the  two  cases  are  entirely  different.  He  knows 
that  in  the  supreme  Executive  department,  the  Colonies  had 
never  been  allowed  a  share ;  whereas  the  States  now  in  rebellion 
have  always  enjoyed  nearly  a  monopoly  1  He  knows  that  in  the 
supreme  Judicial  department,  the  Colonies  had  no  part ;  whereas 
the  States  in  rebellion  had  far  more  than  their  proportion  of 
Judges  in  the  Supreme  Court  up  to  the  moment  of  the  rebel 
lion  !  He  knows  that  in  the  Supreme  Legislature,  the  Colonies 
had  not  one  representative ;  whereas  the  States  in  rebellion 
have  always  had  far  more  than  their  share  of  representatives — 
being  represented  not  only  for  themselves,  but  for  a  large  pro 
portion  of  their  slaves,  whom,  though  for  other  purposes  they 
called  property,  for  this  purpose  they  called  persons. 

The  Colonies  had  been  ill-treated ;  the  rebel  States  have  al 
ways  been  petted.     The  Colonies  exhausted  every  argument, 
and  lingered  long  before  they  took  up  arms  ;   the  rebel  States 
scorned    argument   and  flew  to  arms  at  once.     The  Colonies 
rose  against  laws  which  had  been,  made ;   the  rebel  States  rose 
against  laws  which  they  professed  to  fear  were  to  be  madel- 
The  Colonies  revolted  to  preserve  the  freedom  of  three  million 
white  men ;  the  Southern  States  revolted  to  perpetuate  the  en 
slavement  of  four  million  black  men. 
*  Vol.  i.  p.  14. 


27 

To  justify  tlie  Southern  States  in  revolting  for  slavery,  be 
cause  their  ancestors  revolted  for  freedom,  is  no  more  logical 
than  to  justify  your  Rebecca  riots  against  toll-gates  by  the  up 
rising  which  secured  Magna  Charta. 

In  order  to  correct  another  error,  involved  in  the  passage  quo 
ted,  it  seems  necessary  to  inform  you  that  the  American  Repub 
lic  is  not  living  under  the  "Articles  of  Confederation" — that 
they  were  discarded  nearly  eighty  years  since,  having  been  su 
perseded  in  1787  by  the  present  excellent  Constitution.  Let 
me  therefore,  as  briefly  as  possible,  show  what  you  and  so 
many  of  your  countrymen  find  it  so  "difficult  to  see." 

The. "Articles  of  Confederation"  were  made  in  1777  for  a 
I^eag ue,  and  therefore,  very  naturally,  their  preamble  commen 
ced  with  the  words,  "We  the  delegates  of  States  /"  the  "Con 
stitution"  was  made  for  a  much  stronger  General  Government, 
therefore,  you  find  the  first  words  of  its  preamble,  "  We  the 
People  of  the  United  States." 

The  League,  contemplated  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation, 
failed  utterly ;  therefore  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution  de 
clares  that  its  purpose  is  to  "form  a  more  perfect  union." 

I  trust  that  these  first  letters  of  the  American  Constitutional 
Alphabet  will  be  a  hint  to  you  that  the  founders  of  our  Repub 
lic  never  intended  that  a  State  should  forcibly  seize  upon  the 
property  of  the  General  Government,  tear  down  its  flag,  and 
fire  upon  its  defenders. 

Americans  must  also  object  to  your  careless  way  of  judging 
the  political  capacity  of  our  people.  Englishmen  in  America 
seem  ever  in  dread  of  mobs  ;  but  despite  regret  at  the  tendency 
indicated,  our  people  have  laughed  well  over  one  of  the  famous 
prophecies  of  your  "Letters"  which  you  have  forgotten  to 
suppress  in  your  "Diary." 

"I  have  resolved  to  go  to  Boston,  being  satisfied  that  a  great 
popular  excitement  and  uprising  will,  in  all  probability,  take 
place  on  the  discharge  of  the  Commissioners  from  Fort  Warren."* 

You  seem  to  have  forgotten  to  chronicle  the  fact,  that  not  the 
slightest  uprising  took  place  at  Boston,  or  anywhere  else,  at 
the  discharge  of  the  Commissioners.  Our  people  had  wit 
enough  to  see  that  when  America  gave  up  two  detestable  men, 
England  gave  up  a  detestable  principle. 

ISTor  do  our  legislators  fare  better  than  our  people.  Know 
ing  that  so  many  men  read  books  in  Talleyrand's  fashion — by 
*  Vol.  ii.  p.  428. 


28 

the  index  alone — it  seems  hardly  fair  to  put  in  your  table  of 
contents,  "  An  ex-pugilist  turned  Senator,"*  to  point  out  the 
fact  that  in  your  shrewdness  you  mistook  a  pugilist  for  a  Sen 
ator.  And  if  you  retort  that  the  mistake  was  natural,  I  have 
only  to  answer,  that  there  have  been  four  exhibitions  in  the 
Senate  which  have  smacked  of  pugilism — Foote  against  Ben- 
ton,  Borland  against  Kennedy,  Brooks  against  Sumner,  and 
Salisbury  against  "all  creation;"  and  the  person  committing 
the  assault  was,  in  every  instance,  from  the  Slave  States. 

So  far  as  I  know,  the  only  professional  "pugilist  turned  Sen 
ator"  was,  not  long  since,  in  the  British  Parliament.  From  a 
recent  sketch  published  in  England,  I  find  that  John  Gully, 
Esq.  was  first  a  butcher,  then  a  prize-fighter — taking  part  in 
several  battles,  then  an  inn-keeper,  then  connected  with  the 
turf — whereby  he  made  a  fortune :  and  then,  during  two  ses 
sions,  a  very  worthy  member  of  Parliament.  Had  Mr.  Gully 
lived  the  same  life,  and  gained  the  same  promotion  in  America, 
what  homilies  and  psalms  should  we  have  heard  from  the  En 
glish  press  on  the  foulness  of  American  politics  ! 

As  to  the  house  of  Representatives,  while  acknowledging 
that  in  the  struggles  of  these  latter  years,  it  has  not  preserved 
a  decorum  at  all  creditable,  I  will  challenge  you  to  produce,  from 
all  its  annals,  a  scene  so  discreditable  as  that  which  took  place 
not  long  since  on  the  delivery  of  Lord  C.  Paget's  Speech  on 
the  Navy,  in  the  House  of  Commons.  The  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  has  often  been  fiery,  but  it  has  never  been  obscene. 

Another  quality  in  your  book,  furnishing  ample  scope  for 
criticism,  is  your  carelessness  in  making  very  important  state 
ments. 

Thus — "I  am  told  a  system  of  torture  prevails  there"!  (at 
Sing-Sing  prison).  Why  not  have  taken  the  hour's  ride  from 
New  York  to  that  prison,  and  found  that  its  tendency  is  toward 
even  too  much  humanity  ?  Why  not  have  looked  into  its  his 
tory  to  find  that  not  many  years  since  a  harsh  official  received 
the  execration  of  the  entire  State  ?  You  were  right  in  expo 
sing  the  abominations  of  the  Louisiana  prison  on  examination. 
You  were  wrong  in  condemning  the  excellencies  of  the  New 
York  'prison  without  examination. 

And  again,  of  Senator  Douglas,    "I  was  told  that  the  enor 
mously  wealthy  community,   of  which  he  was  the  idol,  were 
permitting  his  widow  to  live  in  a  state  not  far  removed  from 
*  Vol.  ii.  chap.  22,  Table  of  Contents.  f  Vol.  i.  p.  37. 


29 

penury,"*  Why  not  have  looked  into  the  matter  long  enough 
to  find  that  a  subscription  was  commenced,  that  the  people 
were  only  anxious  to  swell  it,  but  that  a  published  note  from 
the  noble  wife  of  the  deceased  forbade  it,  declaring  that  she  did 
not  need  it.  Was  it  tenderness  to  that  sorrowing  widow,  which 
led  you  in  your  next  sentence  to  quote  from  a  person  whom 
you  call  "one  of  his  friends"  that  "  Senator  Douglas  died  of 
bad  whiskey  ?" 

Then  there  are  other  statements  quite  as  faulty  to  which  you 
do  not  even  put  the  preface  :  "I  am  told,"  as  in  the  sweet  mor 
sel  you  present  to  cotton-loving  souls,  by  extolling  the  land  on 
the  Alabama  river:  "as  it  yields  nine  to  eleven  bales  of  cotton 
to  the  acre — worth  £10  a  bale  at  present  prices,  "f  I  can  give 
you  the  address  of  a  wealthy  planter  from  that  region,  now  in 
London,  who  will  prove  to  you  that  two  bales  to  the  acre  is  a 
very  high  average — and  that  an  average  of  three  bales  was 
never  known. 

So,  too,  take  as  types  of  your  success  in  obtaining  any  real 
knowledge  of  the  men,  with  whom  you  enjoyed  most  intercourse, 
certain  statements  regarding  Mr.  Seward. 

For  that  gentleman  having  founded  some  reasonings  on  state 
ments  regarding  society  in  the  South,  you  say,  "I  doubt  if  he 
was  ever  in  the  South  ?"J  Afterwards,  under  similar  circum 
stances,  you  grew  bolder,  and  will  not  even  allow  him  the  ben 
efit  of  a  doubt — saying,  -'Mr.  Seward,  the  other  day,  in  talk 
ing  of  the  South,  described  them  as  being  in  every  respect  be 
hind  the  age,  with  fashions,  habits,  level  of  thought,  and  modes 
of  life  belonging  to  the  worst  part  of  the  last  century.  JZut 
still  he  has  never  been  there  himself  !"§ 

Now  it  is  true  that  although  the  bitterest  advocates  of  slavery 
have  been  allowed  full  scope  in  the  North,  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis 
having  spoken  freely  in  New  England,  Mr.  Yancey,  in  New 
York,  and  minor  Southern  orators  having  advocated  treason  and 
slavery  everywhere,  Mr.  Seward,  since  his  opposition  to  the 
extension  of  slavery,  could  not  have  visited  the  South — much 
less  have  spoken  there,  without  almost  a  certainty  of  assassi 
nation- — and  that  therefore  he  has,  of  late  years,  remained  at  his 
duties  in  the  Free  States.  But  it  is  strange  that  during  your 
whole  stay  you  should  have  missed  so  well-known  a  feature  in 
the  biography  of  the  Secretary  of  State — a  point  so  capital  in 
any  estimate  of  his  knowledge  of  the  men  with  whom  he  grap- 
*  Vol.  ii.  p.  92.  f  Vol.  i.  p.  266.  £  Vol.  i.  p.  51.  g  Vol.  i.  p.  97. 


30 

pies — as  the  fact,  that  at  the  period  when  his  powers  were  most 
active,  he  resided  in  one  of  the  most  important  districts  of  the 
States  now  in  rebellion,  and  that  as  the  chief  instructor  in  a 
High  School,  he  had  rare  facilities  for  studying  the  institutions 
and  characters  which  are  developed  under  slavery. 

Then,  too,  should  Macaulay's  school-boy  visit  America,  he 
would  certainly  secure  his  oft-threatened  whipping  if,  within  a 
month  he  had  not  learned  that  there  was  once  a  national  Whig 
party,  that  Mr.  Seward  was  one  of  its  chieftains,  and  that,  as 
such,  he  was  welcome  anywhere  in  the  South.  All  this,  added 
to  his  many  years'  intercourse  with  Southern  men  at  Washing 
ton,  will,  I  hope,  relieve  your  mind  of  any  fear  arising  from 
his  want  of  knowledge  of  the  States  now  in  rebellion. 

There  ferments  occasionally  in  your  work,  a  mixture  of  care 
lessness  and  pleasantry  somewhat  to  be  regretted  on  your  own 
account,  but  which  no  true  American  will  ever  suffer  to  vex 
him.  Bubbles  from  that  are  such  phrases  as  "Bastilles," 
"lettres  de  cachet,"  "quadrennial  despot,"  and  the  like;  also, 
such  bits  of  philosophy  as  your  illustration  of  Bayard  Taylor's 
love  for  America  by  Prince  Leboo's  liking  for  his  savage  island. 

Toward  the  end.  of  the  second  volume,  come- occasional  strong 
whiffs  of  haughtiness  mingled  with  ill-temper.  Of  these  is  the 
circumlocution  by  which  you  class  Mr.  Secretary  Stanton 
among  "hypocrites."  I  will  do  you  the  justice  to  say  that 
such  passages,  now  that  you  have  had  time  to  recover  your 
temper,  are  doubtless  far  more  offensive  to  yourself  than  to 
those  at  whom  you  directed  them. 

Passing  all  this,  let  us  come  at  the  great  thing  for  which 
your  book  is  remarkable — the  GREAT  OMISSION. 

The  London  edition  from  which  I  quote  is  in  two  volumes  ; 
it  should  have  been  in  three.  What  you  have  written  should 
occupy  the  first  and  third ;  the  second  should  have  been  left 
clean  paper  to  be  filled  hereafter  with  the  great  thing  of  which 
you  give  no  sign.  Let  me  hint  at  it. 

When  you  arrived  in  America  there  was  peace,  and  as  you 
thought,  apathy ;  before  you  left  it,  hundreds  of  thousands 
were  marching  from  all  parts  of  the  land  toward  the  theatre  of 
war ;  within  eighteen  months  after  your  arrival,  a  million  of 
men  had  been  raised  in  the  midst  of  a  peaceful  community,  to 
brave  the  last  danger  which  had  ever  been  expected. 

The  rebellious  States,  at  a  very  early  period  in  the  war,  re 
sorted  to  a  rigid  conscription ;  the  loyal  States  obtained  nearly 


31 

their  whole  number  of  soldiers  by  volunteering.  Men  went 
from  every  station — lawyers  and  artisans,  merchants  and  cler 
gymen.  From  universities  abroad,  young  men  hurried  home 
ward  to  help  in  the  common  defence.  Every  college  at  home 
became  a  nursery  of  soldiers.  Every  hamlet  had  its  military 
committees,  every  town  its  barracks.  For  equipments,  for 
families  left,  for  succour  of  the  wounded,  for  support  of  the  be 
reft,  money  was  poured  out  like  water. 

Of  course,  so  vast  a  mass  of  hopes  and  efforts  was  tarnished 
here  and  there,  but  time  shall  remove  petty  blemishes.  The 
world  sliall.  yet  acknowledge  the  greatness  of  the  movement 
and  the  sacredness  of  its  motives. 

Of  all  this  great  uprising,  the  truly  great  thing  in  this  con 
test,  you  give  really  nothing.  You  get  glimpses  here  and 
there  of  the  ludicrous  side  of  some  accompaniments,  but  the 
one  great  thing  you  do  not  see. 

The  fault  which  explains  this  astounding  omission  is  appa 
rently  an  utter  contempt  for  the  law  of  mental  and  moral  per 
spective, 

A  fly  on  your  window  at  the  Pincian  may  hide  the  dome  of 
St.  Peter's  ;  just  so  a  soiled  uniform  seems  to  hide  from  your 
mind's  eye  the  quality  of  a-  regiment,  and  a  few  boisterous  offi 
cers,  the  spirit  of  an  army.  Worse  than  that,  table-talk,  col 
oured  by  the  prejudices  of  a  clique,  is  seen  more  than  once  to 
hide  from  you  the  spirit  of  the  whole  nation.  Take  one  example : 

"When  the  merchants,  however,  saw  that  the  South  was 
determined  to  quit  the  Union,  they  resolved  to  avert  the  per 
manent  loss  of  the  great  profits  derived  from  the  connection 
with  the  South  by  some  present  sacrifices.  They  rushed  to 
the  platforms,  the  battle-cry  was  sounded  from  almost  every 
pulpit,  flag-raisings  took  place  hi  every  square,  like  the  plant 
ing  of  the  tree  of  liberty  in  France,  in  1848,  and  the  oath  was 
taken  to  trample  secession  under  foot,  and  to  quench  the  fire  of 
the  Southern  heart  for  ever."* 

This,  then,  is  your  explanation !  You  looked  out  upon  a 
struggle  to  which  not  only  New  York,  but  every  other  part  of 
the  nation  had  given  its  best  blood — a  struggle  which  had  been 
drawing  on  for  seventy  years,  and  you  saw  a  paltry  effort  "  to 
avert  the  permanent  loss  of  the  great  profits  derived  from  their 
connection  with  the  South'*' 


*  Vol.  ii.  p.  111. 


32 

Clearly,  then,  having  had  the  best  of  opportunities  to  make 
a  great  book,  good  for  all  men  in  all  time,  you  have  been  con 
tent  to  make  a  clever  book,  the  talk  of  a  fortnight.  You  had 
a  noble  chance  and  lost  it. 

One  other  Englishman  went  through  a  great  country  on  the 
eve  of  a  fearful  revolution,  but  by  his  breadth  of  view,  his  sei 
zure  of  real  issues,  his  study  of  fruitful  sources,  and  his  love 
for  right,  he  rendered  services  which  the  world  can  never  for 
get.  Look  at  Arthur  Young's  "Travels  in  France,"  and  see 
what  you  might  have  done. 

A  truly  good  book  on  America  would  not  merely  give  its  au 
thor  fame  and  fortune,  it  would  also  make  the  world  his  debtor. 

Since  the  world  cannot  be  expected  to  accept  such  a  work 
from  one  of  our  own  nation,  let  England  give  us  its  author. 
There  are,  indeed,  some  difficulties  almost  inevitable  to  most 
English  writers — difficulties,  too,  not  chargeable  to  the  country 
they  study,  When  Jean  Lemoinne  gave  his  witty  sketch  of 
Dr.  Gumming  monopolizing  the  fulfilments  of  prophecy  for 
England,  and  when  Balzac  made  his  shrewd  remark,  "  There 
are  few  Englishmen  who  will  not  declare  to  you  that  gold  and 
silver  are  better  in  England  than  anywhere  else,"  they  hinted 
at  one  of  these  difficulties.  When  you  wrote  that  "  the  most 
frequent  fault  of  the  stranger  in  any  land  is  generalizing  from 
a  few  facts,"  you  named  another. 

But  there  are  in  England  truly  learned  men  from  whom 
Americans  would  receive  any  censure,  knowing  that  we  have 
to  fear  no  prejudice. 

Send  us  such  a  man,  and  if  not  Mill  or  Cairnes,  give  us,  at 
least,  some  one  with  more  soul  than  a  Liverpool  cotton-broker, 
and  more  mind  than  an  Oxford  mandarin. 

So  shall  the  times  of  frank  good  feeling  return.  Among  all 
the  nations,  England  and  the  United  States  freed  from  slavery 
are  the  two  which  ought  to  stand  together.  Between  their  in 
stitutions,  their  literatures,  their  beliefs,  their  heresies,  are  such 
links  as  bind  no  other  countries. 

Honoured  shall  that  writer  be  who,  by  rendering  justice  to 
the  Free  States,  shall  remove  English  haughtiness  and  Ameri 
can  bitterness.  He  shall  have  the  glory  which  you  have 
spurned.  .  I  am,  Sir, 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

A.  D.  WHITE. 


LD  21-95m-7)'37 


20224 


n  vi 


21G 


